Flyfunston

.
The GGNRA has expressed serious concern in regard to past conflicts and ongoing disputes between HG and PG pilots flying from their lands (Fort Funston, and The Stables/Mori Point).
They have issued a mandate to both BAPA and the Fellow Feathers, that to have our upcoming Special Use Permits approved, both clubs must cooperate and draft some additional language for our SUP’s that would facilitate mutual respect and help prevent any future conflict.

BAPA President Dave McMillan and BAPA-GGNRA Liaison Dave Sondergeld, have been brainstorming with FF President Ken Martin and FF-GGNRA Liaison Steve Rodrigues (yours truly), to draft the proposed language. We have boiled it down to 6 fundamental agreements, please see below.

We believe that these agreements are basic common sense and are fair to everyone, but before submitting them to the GGNRA, the language shall first be presented to the membership of each club for buy-in and approval.

To all Funston hang glider pilots: Please attend the next FF club meeting on July 14 to participate in this discussion and cast your vote. Note: HG pilots need 10 hours of airtime at Fort Funston to be eligible to vote. Having a glider in the clubhouse is *not* a prerequisite.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proposed mutual agreements for BAPA and Fellow Feathers Special Use Permits:

1. All pilots shall observe International Ridge Soaring Rules.

2. All pilots shall use caution and courtesy when flying near other aircraft:

a. Pilots shall not pass upwind of another aircraft in such a way that would intentionally and dangerously wake the other aircraft.

b. Pilots shall respect a minimum safe distance from other aircraft of 25’ in all directions, unless prior mutual consent is obtained.

3. No pilot shall linger upwind or in front of any launch site in such a way that would prevent another pilot from launching safely.

4. No pilot shall linger upwind or in front of any landing zone or landing window in such a way that would prevent another pilot from landing safely.

5. No pilot shall enter an established soaring pattern if their joining that pattern would create a safety hazard or cause another pilot to take evasive action to remain in that pattern.

6. No pilot shall deliberately intimidate another pilot by flying in an aggressive or threatening manner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

each of these ideas are already in practice , so I'd vote for it .

All 6 sound good to me....
Diev

To me it's not about how these idea's effect me or any individual. It's about how
it effects a world class hangliding site! I would like to see proof of concern the
GGNRA has over past conflicts and ongoing disputes, I don't believe it. I think there is
deception here. And in the use of the term "mandate". I see relations with PG and
HG pilots improving with most, maybe not with about three, one of whose name
is mentioned in the first post of this thread. All he wants is to pull up to Funston
spred his canopy and launch! Most PG pilots have little desire to fly our little
step ladder of a ridge. I do not see an immediate problem here unless the GGNRA has
been deceived.
So if you want to reiterate rules, why don't you try this one!

Paragliders are prohibited from launching or landing at Fort Funston. or

All paraglider pilots are required to be rated and insured to fly north of the stables.

The dumps is an unregulated site and there are pilots that fly there that are not rated.
What does Dave McMillan say about that? Tell us more Steve?
Probably can't regulate the dumps so that's why we have boundries.
We have no idea whose coming from the south, I am told by a respected PG pilot.

I have met several pilots at the dumps and more Hangies need to do the same. Go!
to the potluck bbq they have, the fourth of July was a hoot.

So I must vote this down until it is amended. Thanks

My understanding is that the purpose of the new rules is to demonstrate to the Parks Department that all parties are committed to flying together safely and lawfully. The purpose of putting these in writing is to make it perfectly clear to all club members that certain behaviors are unacceptable regardless of an individual’s interpretation of another pilot’s actions. It gives the clubs clear authority to deal with infractions by their own members regardless of whether a conflict involves parties flying from sites that are unregulated or flying aircraft different from the types that usually operate from their own flying sites. It does not address the issue of direct enforcement for pilots flying from unregulated sites but there are other legal means to deal with that if needed. It also shows the clubs are committed to regulating themselves in spite of an unregulated group that operates in the same area.

It would be impossible to draft any rules that effectively regulate pilots flying from unregulated sites. The Parks Department most likely understands this and only wants to be sure that the clubs they deal with are effectively regulating their member’s activities. That is the most anyone can hope for at this time. Perhaps a club will form at the unregulated sites in the future and then they can also be included in this agreement, but until that time we can show our commitment to safety by following these rules unilaterally which should make the Parks Department very happy.

In the interest of clarity I would like to see the following paragraph added to the agreement:

“It is acknowledged that some pilots (both hang glider and paraglider pilots) operate from unregulated flying sites between Fort Funston and Pacifica. These rules apply to any interactions between aircraft regardless of whether the operations are from a club regulated flying site or not, and apply to both hang glider and paraglider pilots equally. It is also acknowledged that Fellow Feathers and BAPA have no direct authority over the unregulated flying sites yet each group agrees that its members will obey these rules because they constitute safe and courteous operations in the airspace. These rules do not conflict with existing FAA rules and FAA rules are assumed to be obeyed at all times in the airspace.”

Steve Morris

Hi Rick,

You said you wanted to “see proof of concern the GGNRA has over past conflicts and ongoing disputes”. I’m happy to provide more information but first a little background: Since day one, the GGNRA had only issued the Fellow Feathers a one-year Special Use Permit. This was not just a pain in the tail, but also a bit unstable for us because we had to sit down with them and renegotiate our agreement every 12 months.

During my tenure as president, our relationship with the GGNRA improved such that I was able to negotiate first a two-year SUP, and after that a five year SUP! Unfortunately, things went downhill after that.
Thanks to the behavior and activities of some members, many issues arose during the period that Tracey Story was president. She did a great job resolving conflicts and smoothing things over with the GGNRA, but because of all the SUP violations, public complaints, and law enforcement activity at the Fort, the GGNRA told us that our SUP was in danger of being suspended. This was posted on our discussion board and was a topic at a number of club meetings: http://flyfunston.org/bbs/viewtopic ... 4ec24bd01c

I agree with you that things have improved a lot lately, but because of continuing issues and disputes, the GGNRA cut our last SUP back to 12 months and is not willing to extend it due to our current state of affairs. James Sword from the GGNRA told the presidents of both FF and BAPA that they need to draft mutual language for our SUP’s that will put an end to the ongoing disputes.

Mr. Sword also asked USHPA to be involved with these negotiations, and while Martin Palmaz has personally offered his help, USHPA’s official policy is to have Chapters handle their own local business and they do not intend to intervene unless their involvement is absolutely required to preserve the flying site.

Is this enough info to satisfy your question/concern?

I’d like to get us back on a long-term SUP relationship with the GGNRA, but this can only be accomplished by regaining their faith that the Fellow Feathers can manage hang gliding at Fort Funston and avoid conflict between other club’s and other pilots. I believe the proposed SUP language should satisfy their request.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your observations and suggestions.

The GGNRA has acknowledged that the Dumps is an unregulated site that neither they nor BAPA can regulate. James Sword made it clear that they only issue SUP’s for lands under their jurisdiction, i.e. Fort Funston, the Stables, and Mori Point.

I like your proposed clarification language and will submit it to James Sword for an official response as to its suitability for our SUP’s.

“It is acknowledged that some pilots (both hang glider and paraglider pilots) operate from unregulated flying sites between Fort Funston and Pacifica. These rules apply to any interactions between aircraft regardless of whether the operations are from a club regulated flying site or not, and apply to both hang glider and paraglider pilots equally. It is also acknowledged that Fellow Feathers and BAPA have no direct authority over the unregulated flying sites yet each group agrees that its members will obey these rules because they constitute safe and courteous operations in the airspace. These rules do not conflict with existing FAA rules and FAA rules are assumed to be obeyed at all times in the airspace.”

Thanks again!

Please see the following language from the Fellow Feathers 2015 Special Use Permit that prohibits paragliding at Fort Funston. This language is supported by the GGNRA and shall remain in future SUP’s.

While there may be a few paraglider pilots who would like this language to be changed, those individuals do not represent the official position of BAPA, who has not asked that this specific language be removed.

However, BAPA is asking that certain language be removed from their SUP, specifically that which prohibits paragliders *launching from the Stables* from flying north of the Training Bowl. The FF needs to discuss the effects that a change like this may or may not have on hang gliding at Fort Funston. Personally, I do not believe that removing the restriction will have any negative effect, in fact quite the opposite.

FF/GGNRA SUP:

E, 2: “The use of the permitted site by the Permittee for any activity other than hang gliding is prohibited. Site monitoring, a staging area, picnicking, and club meetings (including those that take place after sunset) are permitted given the direct relationship between these activities and the permitted use. Excluded activities include the use of paragliders, radio controlled motorized models, and any motorized vehicles.”

G, 4, r: “No motorized, experimental, or paragliding flight is allowed at Fort Funston.”

Hi Steve,

Yes this is some clarity for me, but more importantly for all club members.
It's just that words like "Mandate" and "SUP" held above our heads and dealing
with such a liberal-assed government agency ruffles my feathers. Thanks for
providing the E,2 and G,4 GGNRA language.

Anything that is worth drafting, voting and passing is worth amending.

Still won't vote for it though. Thanks